I'd guess part of it is simply generational. As Douglas Adams has stated (I'm paraphrasing slightly), every tech around by the time you're born is "normal," new technology that is invented before you're thirty is cool and new and anything that gets invented after you're thirty is "against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it." It seems there's definitely an element of that happening here. Also, there's some view that talking to friends is just idle chatter... whereas reading a book is a "serious" thing from which you might learn. Of course, the fact that the most popular books are probably just as insight free as many online conversations is ignored. It's not like everyone reading books is digging into a meaty exploration of ways to solve all the world's problems. Either way, Mathew raises a good point. I'd be curious if someone can defend the importance of books while also defending the claim that social networking is useless without being self-contradictory.

from the because-nothing-says-'human-contact'-like-something-addressed-to-'oc dept

You know a service is on its last legs when the best argument a person can make for its continued existence is both a) very likely untrue and b) incredibly depressing. The United States Postal Service, best known these days for its massive accounting losses and quarterly stamp price increases, is being forced to deal with the reality of a world that sends most of its mail via the internet. With deep cuts and office closures looming, Sen. Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to say a few words in its defense, as The Consumerist reports:

Speaking yesterday to his fellow Senators, Reid really sucked the air out of the room with this part of his "Save the USPS" speech:

"Elderly Americans rely on the United States Postal Service... I'll come home to my home here in Washington and there will be some mail there. A lot of it is what some people refer to as junk mail. But for the people that are sending that mail, it's very important. And, talking about seniors - Seniors LOVE to get junk mail. It's sometimes their only way of communicating or feeling they're part of the real world."

Here's Reid in "action:"

It's rare to see someone make a statement that undercuts the "essentialness" of the USPS so thoroughly, especially one made in its defense. If the best argument a person can come up with is that the Postal Service needs to remain intact in order to provide a point of contact between desperately lonely seniors and the companies that prey on them, then it's time to admit that maybe, just maybe, the "service" is actually more of a burden.

In fact, with "austerity" being the watchword (well, not here specifically, but all over Europe), maybe it's time to (and this is an unfortunate turn of phrase, but trust me, it gets worse...) kill two birds with one stone and cut off the flow of junk mail to seniors. Now that they won't have a third rejection letter from Publishers Clearing House to look forward to, perhaps they'll go more gracefully into that good night, thus reducing the strain on the already-overmatched Social Security fund.

Speaking of overmatched retirement funds, most the USPS's massive losses stem from having to prefund retiree health benefits, an issue that could be negated with another "two birds one stone" solution. The USPS could cut loose its potential retirees, shifting them from "mounting losses" category into the more profitable "willing recipient of mass mailing" demographic. We call that "win-win" where I come from (a rural Midwestern area known for its redundancy).

Or maybe it's time to privatize. The USPS seems to believe it can compete if the government takes the, uh, governor off rates and services. If so, the USPS will need to hit the ground running, something massive entities are rarely good at. As the Consumerist has shown, both FedEx and UPS are willing to step in to fill the void. The two companies already have a proven track record for getting packages from Point A to Point B (even if the final destination was supposed to be Point C) as well as making great strides in treating your packages with a government-like callous disregard. This may also hasten the adoption of paperless billing, which should prove to be a boon to the economy as the affected companies will be able to collect "convenience charges" for electronic transactions, something simply not possible in the era of horse-and-buggy pen-and-checkbook.

Of course, paperless billing requires an internet connection and the ability to navigate to secure sites without picking up a variety of obnoxious toolbars and pernicious malware, so maybe Harry Reid is right. Despite the fact that Grandma likely has over 96,000 hours of AOL packed into a file box in the hall closet, the internet can be a weird and dangerous place for those used to more analog experiences. And AOL itself is no help. Signing up for the service seems simple enough for those with landlines, but once you decide you no longer need its portal to the sanitized internet, getting them to cancel your service is about as simple as removing your own kidney. (Actually, it's more difficult than that. It's like trying to persuade the surgeon to remove the faulty kidney and instead being told that what you really want is a third kidney.)

If Senator Reid is right, and the USPS is the only thing standing between seniors and a not-all-that-untimely (but very lonely) death, thanks to its continuous flow of "human contact" via junk mail, perhaps the solution is to move some postal workers over to Meals-on-Wheels and let the private sector decide whether or not it wants the aching loneliness of America's growing elderly population on its hands. My guess is that no matter who's handling the delivery side of the business, junk mailers will still find a way to get their ads into the hands of general population.

As for Publishers Clearing House, it will have to make a few adjustments. For starters, it may have to stop pushing magazine subscriptions, as most magazines at this point are pamphlet-thin and nearly 75% ads. (Except for Reader's Digest Large Print Edition!) As the denizens of the internet march slowly towards their golden years, they're not going to have much patience for an information source with less interactivity than a PDF. And they're certainly not going to be checking the mailbox for contact with the outside world.

from the share-the-value dept

As I discussed in my Hacking Society post, one of the things I'm thinking a lot about these days is how to measure value that isn't directly monetized. There's a related aspect to all of this, as well: recognizing that when you create value, you don't have to monetize all of it directly yourself. Historically, in economics, they've talked about things like "externalities" and "spillovers" when discussing parts of the economic value chain that can't be controlled or monetized directly. However, it seems like a growing number of economists are realizing that this undersells what's happening. Externalities and spillovers often feel like a small thing -- a tangential bit tossed off to the side. But when you're dealing with information and digital goods, it's important to recognize that these things can be a major part of the market, and may not be controllable at all. And that may be a good thing.

In the discussion we had about Craigslist, one of the points was that while Craigslist itself only "captures" a small part of the value it's unleashed, that's not necessarily bad. First, it's good because much of that value to go out to the users of Craigslist themselves. That's why they appreciate and use Craigslist in the first place. If Craigslist tried to capture all of that value itself, people would stop using Craigslist. Now some may argue it becomes a different situation when you have third parties monetizing some of that value, but I disagree. When you look at the most successful companies in the world, they're often platforms -- they create value and capture some of it, but also allow much of that value to be monetized by others.

Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook. All of them created a massive amount of value -- and all have become phenomenally successful companies -- but all of them did so by also letting others monetize large portions of the value they created. It's how you build a more long-lasting ecosystem from which you can continue to profit from over time. If you seek to capture all of the value yourself, you don't last very long.

“But you’re heading down a route we’ve seen before – giving the opportunity to extract value to somebody else in an area that should be our own – so Flipboard is problematic.”

Of course, that ignores the fact that Flipboard -- an aggregator app -- provides its own value as well. People don't use Flipboard just because it includes content from The Economist. They use it because of the overall experience and the fact that it aggregates content from lots of different sources in one place. As much as The Economist, or any publication, might like to "own" the reader, that's not necessarily what the reader wants. Letting others "extract" some of that "value" can actually be a really good thing. Flipboard provides a useful service for The Economist in not only experimenting with new ways to aggregate and present content -- from which The Economist can learn -- but also in potentially expanding The Economist's audience as well, feeding much greater value back into that ecosystem.

Yes, companies need to look at the overall market and see where it is they can extract value -- but you have to wonder about those who claim eminent domain over certain parts of the marketplace. Letting others extract some (and perhaps lots) of that value can have tremendous benefits for those who do so.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Beer has shaped civilization for centuries. It's one of the oldest alcoholic beverages, and it comes in countless varieties for just about every taste. The progress of beer is unstoppable, and here are just a few more advances in the field of beer.

from the wasn't-disclosure-the-point? dept

We're told, repeatedly, by some patent system supporters that the whole point of the patent system is really about "disclosure." Of course, this is a myth for a variety of reasons. The biggest, of course, is that in many industries patents are both completely useless to learn anything from and are never used to learn how things are done. This is especially true in software, where you will never hear about anyone learning how to do anything from a patent. A few years back, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) started publishing nearly all patent applications 18 months after the application came in. This is a pretty common practice around the globe. If a patent system is about disclosure, this makes sense -- and in theory, allows for people to point out prior art or protest certain patents before they're issued. There is a current exception for patents deemed in the interest of national security to keep secret (such as patents on nuclear energy).

By statute, patent applications are published no earlier than 18 months after the
filing date, but it takes an average of about three years for a patent application to be
processed. This period of time between publication and patent award provides
worldwide access to the information included in those applications. In some
circumstances, this information allows competitors to design around U.S.
technologies and seize markets before the U.S. inventor is able to raise financing
and secure a market.

As far as I can tell, this directive seems to be saying that because patent applications might do what the patent system is supposed to do -- help disclose ideas -- we should keep the applications secret. The problem, of course, is that pretty much every patent applicant is going to think their patent is economically significant. The reality is that pretty much no one knows if their patents are economically meaningful until years later when a product is actually on the market. This proposal seems to serve no purpose other than helping companies not to disclose ideas while still letting them get patents.

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

There's a guy in NY, Clark Stoekley, who apparently owns a white panel van that he's painted with the Wikileaks logo to raise awareness of the plight of Bradley Manning (though he has no other connection to Manning or Wikileaks). There's a lot more info on the truck on his website. However, it appears that, unrelated to the truck, Stoekley has another issue to deal with: he was arrested for photographing police at Penn Station in Manhattan. He saw police in the station carrying semi-automatic weapons (an unfortunately common site in Penn Station), and he decided to photograph them with his phone. And from there, a familiar, if unfortunate, and almost certainly illegal incident ensued. As told by Pixiq:

Metropolitan Transit Authority police arrested a man for photographing them at Penn Station in New York City this afternoon – deleting his photo – before releasing him from a jail cell an hour later.

Clark Stoeckley was issued a summons charging him with “engaging in threatening behavior.”

“I was walking through Penn Station and I came across these MTA cops with semi-automatic weapons,” he said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime.

“I stopped to take a photo and the cop came up to me and arrested me. I asked, ‘why am I being arrested?’

“’Because you’re a dick,’” the officer responded.

Of course, we've written tons of stories about police arresting the members of public for photographing or filming them while on duty. The MTA and New York may want to pay close attention to what happened up in Boston, where Simon Glik prevailed against the city of Boston and the Boston Police Department for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights under very similar circumstances (though I don't even think they deleted the photos). In the end, the city of Boston had to pay Glik a large sum of money for violating his rights.

At what point will police finally learn that when they're in public, being photographed or video taped is fair game?

from the mpaa's-worst-nightmare dept

The MPAA often loves to talk about just how evil DVD bootleggers are. They're the ones that the MPAA most frequently uses to draw a "connection" between "piracy" and "organized crime." Because of DVD bootleggers, we even got a ridiculous, 4th Amendment-ignoring law in California that lets police search DVD printing plants at random with no warrant, just to make sure they're not making copies of movies without authorization. Of course, law enforcement also has a history of seizing authorized DVDs and insisting they were pirated.

One of the world’s most prolific bootleggers of Hollywood DVDs loves his morning farina. He has spent eight years churning out hundreds of thousands of copies of “The Hangover,” “Gran Torino” and other first-run movies from his small Long Island apartment to ship overseas.

“Big Hy” — his handle among many loyal customers — would almost certainly be cast as Hollywood Enemy No. 1 but for a few details. He is actually Hyman Strachman, a 92-year-old, 5-foot-5 World War II veteran trying to stay busy after the death of his wife. And he has sent every one of his copied DVDs, almost 4,000 boxes of them to date, free to American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are some great pictures in the article, which show that he's actually using some sophisticated equipment, including a professional DVD duplicator that lets him make seven copies at once. He estimates that he spends about 60 hours a week bootlegging movies. By his own estimates, he sends about 80,000 DVDs per year, and has probably sent over 300,000 total since he started. And soldiers in the field love him for it.

An MPAA spokesperson admits that he "did not believe [the MPAA] studios were aware of Mr. Strachman's operation" and then delicately stated, "We are grateful that the entertainment we produce can bring some enjoyment to [soldiers] while they are away from home." However, you have to imagine that they're seething about the NY Times highlighting how much good a bootlegging operation can do.

Of course, the real shame in all of this is that the MPAA could -- and probably should -- be doing this directly themselves. They should be providing DVDs or streams free of charge to the military. Instead, in their insane fear of piracy, they make it complicated to impossible for soldiers to view films, even when they decide to send them over: "studios do send military bases reel-to-reel films, which are much harder to copy, and projectors for the troops overseas." Because that's exactly what you want for soldiers in the field: having to carry around and mess with heavy and annoying equipment that's likely to break.

As for Strachman, he seems to hope that his age and the fact that he's not doing this for money will protect him:

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

The whole CISPA situation keeps looking more and more questionable. For months, we've been raising the question of why we needed such a law in the first place, because the evidence of any online threat that required such a law seemed hyperbolic at best, and perhaps naively anecdotal, at worst. However, there's another dimension to the "why" question. It's not just that the actual risk hasn't been quantified, it's not clear that the government and companies actually need a new law to share such security info in the first place. As we stated, the "right" way to do this would be to look at where the actual roadblocks are today in sharing such info. And there's some evidence that such roadblocks don't even exist.

The FBI has been information-sharing with private industry for over a decade without a bill like CISPA in place.

In 1997, long-time FBI agent Dan Larkin helped set up a non-profit based in Pittsburgh that “functions as a conduit between private industry and law enforcement.” Its industry members, which include banks, ISPs, telcos, credit card companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others can hand over cyberthreat information to the non-profit, called the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA), which has a legal agreement with the government that allows it to then hand over info to the FBI. Conveniently, the FBI has a unit, the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, stationed in the NCFTA’s office. Companies can share information with the 501(c)6 non-profit that they would be wary of (or prohibited from) sharing directly with the FBI.

In other words, if sharing info was important, we already had a perfectly functional model that's been in place for 15 years. This means, either that the Congressional authors and supporters of this bill were completely ignorant of this or CISPA is really meant to sneak through something worse. Neither makes CISPA or its supporters look very good. I'm actually hoping that the truth is that they're just ignorant and passing laws on issues they don't understand, because the other choice is even more depressing.

from the it's-a-majority,-but-not-as-we-know-it dept

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament announced today that it cannot support ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement).

The press release picks out the core problems:

"Civil society has been extremely vocal in recent months in raising their legitimate concerns on the ACTA agreement which we share. There are too many provisions lacking clarity and certainty as to the way they would be implemented in practice.

"Furthermore, ACTA wrongly bundles together too many different types of IPR enforcement under the same umbrella, treating physical goods and digital services in the same way. We believe they should be approached in separate sectoral agreements, and following a comprehensive and democratically debated mandate and impact assessment."

Although that means in theory that a majority of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) would vote against ACTA's ratification, things aren't that simple, as Rick Falkvinge explains:

this majority against ACTA is not like other majorities, which are predictable and stable. The European Parliament is fairly unique among parliaments, in that the MEPs are neither required (or indeed expected) to toe the party line, and while the party whip [line] exists, it is mostly of the fun kind. A recommendation, if you like. Deviations from the declared party line is not only common but expected in pretty much every vote. So even though the party groups have declared their party lines, this has no effective binding force on the people doing the actual button-pressing, and it’s the tally of them that counts in the end.

This makes the position of the EPP Group of European Conservatives, the largest block in the European Parliament, critically important. They have just come out with a document entitled: "EPP Group on ACTA: Fix It!", which is still peddling this kind of stuff:

Many of the provisions included in ACTA provide a useful basis to step up the fight against counterfeit products and ensure an adequate protection of consumers and companies alike. This is undisputed.

Hardly undisputed. As the Liberals pointed out in their press release, "the countries that are the main sources of counterfeit goods are not party to the agreement, so its value is questionable": without China as a signatory, ACTA will have no measurable effect on counterfeits in Europe, so the EPP statement is simply wrong.

On the other hand, the EPP does at least seem to understand that ACTA is problematic:

our intensive discussions with citizens and legal experts have shown that we need more legal clarity regarding certain provisions in the agreement in respect of its online chapters.

It must be ensured not only that ACTA fully respects the EU legal order, especially the Fundamental Rights Charter and the data protection acquis. It is as important that ACTA is not open to any interpretation that would infringe EU law.

It's good to see even the EPP accepting that ACTA is flawed in this way. What's less satisfactory is what it proposes to do about it:

We therefore call on the European Commission and member states to ensure legal clarity regarding the following provisions of ACTA, before the EPP Group can support the agreement

Those provisions concern ISPs being asked to police the Internet, and the vague concept of "commercial-scale" infringements. Both are indeed worrying, but so is the idea that the European Commission and member states can somehow "fix" them by providing "legal clarity". The point is, ACTA has been signed; it cannot be changed. Whatever the European Commission and members states say, ACTA will remained flawed and therefore dangerous.

It's pretty clear what's going on here. The EPP is desperately trying to find a way that will allow it to claim that ACTA has been fixed -- as their press release proclaims -- and that MEPs should just forget about all the fuss and meekly agree to its ratification. But ACTA cannot be fixed, since it cannot be amended in any way. So the EPP has come up with this trick of "calling on" the European Commission to promise that everything will be OK when it comes to implementation through EU and national laws.

But no business would sign a flawed contract on the basis of vague promises that its worst clauses won't be implemented: it would tear it up and re-negotiate. So the idea that politicians should adopt this irresponsible approach for a treaty that will impact 500 million people and shape the laws of a continent for many years to come, rather than draw up a new one that does the job properly, is just absurd.

from the depends-on-how-you-define-"better" dept

Yesterday, after I asserted that CISPA had gotten much worse before it was passed in a rushed vote, I heard from several people (even those in the anti-CISPA camp) who took the opposite position. They feel that, while CISPA is still a highly problematic bill, the Quayle amendment which I roundly criticized actually represented a significant last-minute improvement to the text. I still don't see it that way, for reasons I explain below, but they did make an important point that is worth calling attention to.

Basically, under their reading of the previous text, it allowed the government to use the data for any non-regulatory purpose as long as it has one cybersecurity or national security purpose. I hadn't initially read it that way but I completely agree, and that is indeed a troublesome wild card to hand to the government. The amendment removed the broad "any lawful purpose" language, replacing it with the list of five specific uses (cybersecurity, cyber crime, protecting people from harm, protecting children from exploitation, and national security), thus closing that gaping hole in the bill. In that sense, it's a good amendment.

But, does it really improve CISPA? That depends on how you look at it. CISPA is supposed to be a "cybersecurity" bill, and both its supporters and its opponents in Congress have repeatedly stated that cybersecurity means protecting networks and systems from disruption, hacking and malicious code—primarily coming from overseas. Even during yesterday's debate, virtually every representative who spoke opened with a speech on this topic, and Ruppersberger himself insisted that CISPA's sole purpose was allowing companies and the government to share "formulas, Xs and Os, the virus code". (I'm pretty sure he meant "1s and 0s", but what do you expect from someone who doesn't understand the thing he's trying to legislate?)

Now, critics of the bill have of course been saying all along that it could be used for things way beyond this stated cybersecurity purpose. But the response from supporters has been consistent: no, it can't, and even if it can, it won't be. [Insert another impassioned speech about the cyber-threat from China.] Then, suddenly, only a few minutes before the final vote, the representatives near-unanimously amend CISPA to include these brand new targets of bodily harm and child exploitation, which have nothing to do with cybersecurity and which have rarely if ever been mentioned in relation to the bill.

Basically, the amendment closes a loophole but opens a door. It takes away some of the language that allows overreach of the bill, but then explicitly endorses the exact things people were worried the government would do with that language—as in, start using the data to investigate and build cases against American citizens without regard for the laws that would normally protect their privacy.

Is that an improvement? CISPA would now grant the government less vague power, which is good, but would also grant it brand new specific powers, which is bad and frankly pretty insulting. Because, if this is indeed an improvement and a narrowing of the government's power, how are we to take that if not as a confession that virtually every representative has been baldly lying this whole time? They have said over and over again that they don't want or plan to use the bill for anything except shoring up network security, but we're supposed to see the addition of these brand new applications as limiting CISPA's target? To me, that sounds like they're saying: "Okay, you got us—we really wanted to secretly do all this other stuff. As long as you still let us do that, we'll change the bill."

So the way I see it, there are two ways to look at the Quayle amendment: either it made the bill worse, by massively expanding its stated purpose to whole new areas of the law such that it can no longer accurately be called a "cybersecurity" bill at all, or else it made the bill better by codifying the ways it can be abused for non-cybersecurity purposes.

Of course, it's not as though everyone trusted what supporters were saying about the bill's purpose before. We all knew it would be used for these other things. But simply getting them to admit that is not really progress. It's accurate to say that the amendment has limited the government's power under CISPA by changing the language, but it's also ludicrous to say that turning a cybersecurity/national-security bill into a cybersecurity/cybercrime/violent-crime/child-exploitation/national-security bill at the last minute represents narrowing or improving it. In fact, the only way that's an improvement is if the representatives are admitting that they were planning on it being used for even more unstated purposes all along, but are now content with choosing only a few of the things they have repeatedly denied they wanted. I see how that can be framed as progress, but it's not exactly something that the House deserves any praise for.

from the time-to-reconsider dept

There have been a bunch of rulings in a variety of district courts around the country rejecting a variety of ways in which copyright trolling operations have been seeking to use the judicial system as a part of their business model -- not to actually take anyone to court, but merely to (a) identify people they can threaten and (b) threaten them with the possibility of a lawsuit if they don't pay up. Thankfully, an increasing number of judges have been calling the trolls out on this, and saying they won't be a part of this. Usually this comes in the form of rejecting a request for expedited discovery (which would allow the trolls to subpoena subscriber info from ISPs) or arguing that lumping together so many users into a single case was improper.

However, there has been one major exception to these rejections: the case in the DC district court by Judge Beryl Howell... who just happens to have been a former RIAA lobbyist, who only recently left that job to take a seat on the bench. The Howell ruling is regularly cited by trolls as proof that there's nothing wrong with the way in which they pursue these lawsuits -- ignoring a massive number of rulings that say otherwise.

The ISPs in that original case, though, filed by AF Holdings, represented by Prenda Law (which, you may recall, is connected to John Steele), are asking Judge Howell to reconsider (especially in light of all those other rulings). On top of that, they're saying that if she won't reconsider, they'd like to take the issue up to the appeals court before proceeding with the rest of the case. That could become important, as it would be the first time an appeals court weighs in on this. Some public interest groups, including the ACLU and EFF, have filed an amicus brief as well, asking Judge Howell to change her decision concerning discovery.

from the sharing-is-caring dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about Dan Bull's new song and new experiment: could he release a track via The Pirate Bay for free... and still get it onto the music charts? We talked to Dan to see how the process has been so far, and discussed a few other things as well. Dan also mentioned a new carrot that he's added to the promotion. If you buy all 10 versions of his song he'll put your name into his next song (and try to make it rhyme with something). You can see him talking about that program here:

Onto our interview:

What are you hoping to accomplish/show with "Sharing is Caring"?

I want to show that it's possible for musicians to achieve whatever they set their mind on without the need for the protection / interference of record labels and their lobbyists. The BPI, who already helped to force the Digital Economy Act through Parliament during the scrutiny-free wash-up week, are now trying to have The Pirate Bay censored in the United Kingdom. This is a website that does not host any copyrighted material but merely connects people who want to share their own files. It's also a site that does more for unsigned musicians like myself than the BPI ever have. Of course, on top of this, it'll be a great personal achievement and hopefully give a boost to my musical career.

What is your opinion on the music charts?

As a young lad I used to listen avidly to the charts every Sunday, and I'd promptly go to the record store and buy the top hits the next day. The charts is a powerful force in influencing young people's musical purchases. It's a shame, because the charts are no mark of musicianship or long-term listenability - merely whatever has managed to sell the biggest quantity of copies that week. It's odd that weekly sales is considered the most important measure by which we judge the success of a piece of music.

What do you think the successful music careers of the future will look like?

The long tail of the music business is going to get longer and fatter. Many more unsigned and niche musicians will find their audiences and be able to support themselves thanks to the way the internet allows them to find a sizeable audience around the globe. The top 1% of musicians might see a dip in sales - perhaps they'll only be millionaires rather than multi-millionaires. Why is this such a problem?

What's the reaction to "Sharing is Caring" been so far?

The feedback has been great. People like the idea behind the campaign, and equally importantly they're enjoying the song. There have been detractors too - someone said "you're not getting a free song into the charts, you're selling it. Every other song in the charts is available for free somewhere online." The difference is that I have published the free download myself and am encouraging people to download it - in hope that it'll lead to more engagement later. Major label artists who do this (or are even allowed to do this) are few and far between.

I'm not sure how well the single will do in the "official" charts - whatever "official" is supposed to mean - but it's currently swamping the Amazon hip-hop charts with half of the top selling MP3s being my songs. One of the b-sides is also at number one in the reggae charts - three places above Bob Marley, despite the release of the new documentary film about him.

Are there certain protections you think artists do need? As in, how do you deal with truly bad actors?

I don't see why creators need special legal protections more than anyone else in society. I was asked yesterday "well what if someone uploaded all your music and claimed it was by them - wouldn't you want it taken down?". Well, yes I would want it taken down, but I don't think there needs to be a law enforcing that to happen. It just means that the person was behaving like a dick and I would make that fact known. It's too difficult to draw a line between "fair use" and "unfair use", I believe we'd be better off giving everyone the benefit of the doubt in order to stop mashups and parodies being caught in the crossfire.

Is there still a role for pop stars, or is that going away?

People will always love a pop star to read about and gossip about. They won't go away any time soon, but as I said before - people are listening to a lot more music. You used to buy a new record every couple of weeks perhaps and not listen to much else. With the advent of services like Spotify, a person might spread their listening time over 50 artists rather than 5. This is probably a far bigger reason than piracy as to why the sales of the biggest artists might be reducing. Listening habits have changed and you can't legislate against that.

How important have tools like YouTube (and Megaupload?) been to you
in getting your music out?

They've been absolutely vital. YouTube is how most of my listeners discover me. I also became a YouTube partner last year which means I can earn money from streams of videos I've uploaded. It's a great place to discover and collaborate with other artists.

The Megaupload takedown damaged my musical career. Supposedly done in the interests of artists like me, what it actually did was turn all the links to free downloads of music, on blogs, review sites etc, into deadlinks. Why was this allowed to happen? I'd love to see Megaupload's prosecutors explain to me personally how their actions are helping artists such as me.

from the and-here's-a-playlist dept

Nelson Cruz points us to the latest news of totally ridiculous and disproportionate punishments for file sharing. A young man in Portugal has been convicted on criminal charges for sharing 3 songs. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, but the jail sentence was suspended, and instead he has to pay €880. While the report notes he was apparently sharing more songs, the charges only covered 3 songs. To make it clear just how ridiculous this is, Nelson also put together a YouTube playlist with all three songs -- showing that they're all available to share in this manner legally. Today. Back in 2006, because of the industry's own stupidity, such services were not readily available. If they were, the kid likely would have used such a legal service. So how is it that what this kid did was so horrible that it deserves a criminal conviction? It seems like all he really did was help show the industry what the public was looking for.

Of course, the ridiculousness doesn't stop there. The local Portuguese version of the RIAA, called the AFP, appears to be using this case as an example of why they need a Hadopi-style three strikes law in Portugal. The problem? It took nearly six years to convict this kid for daring to share 3 songs. Of course, it took nearly as long for the industry to get its act together and offer legal services. Perhaps we should give that a go for a while before we start passing new laws that kick people off the internet, yes?

from the value-and-benefit dept

I was lucky enough to attend a small gathering of great thinkers put together by Union Square Ventures earlier this week for an event they called Hacking Society -- which was designed to be a one day open conversation on the economics and power of networks, and how to use that as a force for good, in solving economic and social challenges. There were lots of great thoughts that came out of the event (which was live streamed over the web for people to listen in and participate via Twitter -- as many did). It would be impossible to sum up all of the great points in a single blog post, so I'm just going to discuss briefly the larger themes that hit me and helped to connect a few disparate ideas in my own mind.

The first issue was the role of incumbents (of all kinds) in trying to block innovation. As Clay Shirky amusingly repeated the so-called "Shirky Principle" (not named by him, but for him) on command a few times, "institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution." Economics professor Luigi Zingales made a similar point, but from a slightly different perspective, noting that "All entrepreneurs want a free market when they enter and don't want one after they win." That's just another way of showing the nature of incumbents under crony capitalism. Rep. Jim Cooper also made a similar point, noting that "The past, in general, is over-represented in Washington. The future has no lobbyists."

These are all variations on the same basic theme -- which all of us know is a significant problem. Of course, we've seen this many times over -- and it's certainly true on one of the key issues we talk about, intellectual property. If you look through the history of intellectual property expansion, it tends to slow innovation. That is, you get areas where there is great innovation, often with little to no protections, and it's then that incumbents demand protectionism in the form of greater IP laws and enforcement. It's a way to lock in their success, and limit disruptive upstarts. It is, as Zingales was saying, a case where the free market is useful until they've won -- and then they use the laws to try to protect their position.

But how do we deal with this problem?

That's where things (not surprisingly) seemed to get bogged down. Some suggested having to play the game the way it's done today -- setting up a SuperPAC, hiring lobbyists, and having "the future" represented in DC. That idea didn't go over too well with the rest of the room, who felt that the power of networks might enable something different and something new. I'd argue that it's even more than that. Because of the power of the incumbency, there's simply no way that anyone could effectively represent "the future" long term from a traditional lobbyist role. You'd always have some who could do it some of the time, but it wouldn't be sustainable -- either due to a lack of true funding to the level of the incumbents, or (worse) having the "representatives of the future" get "captured" by the incumbency.

However, as the discussion danced around this question, something interesting happened. Fred Wilson, from Union Square Ventures, suggested that Craigslist went against the traditional "capitalist" model of maximizing revenue. And while Craig Newmark (in his usual fashion) wouldn't make a direct statement on this, I challenged the assumption -- as I did in writing many years ago -- noting that this claim ignores the function of time. Those who think capitalism is about maximizing all revenue at this second are missing out on what it means to maximize revenue over time. That is, if Craigslist raised rates on everything to maximize revenue in the short term, it would almost certainly lead to an untimely death in the long term. That's because it would open up all sorts of opportunities for others to come in and undercut them and take away their business. That gives them the ability to keep customers happy and keep making revenue (and lots of it) in the much longer term. To me, that is true capitalism.

Wall Street thinking is maximizing revenue today -- without consideration for how that impacts revenues over time. That's not strategic and it's not smart. Smart capitalism is recognizing the importance of the time function. It means actually aligning your own best interests with the public's -- because if you don't it just opens up an opportunity for others to better serve the public. So when people suggest (as they did) that companies like Craigslist and Kickstarter are not "maximizing revenue," I disagree completely. They absolutely are, because they're providing so much consumer value, that they're able to continue to make a ton of money themselves, because the public wants to come back and wants to support them. Not because they have no other choice.

In effect, what companies like Kickstarter and Craigslist have shown is the way in which a more strategic player avoids the trap of the incumbent. By thinking that they're not trying to maximize revenue, they actually do end up maximizing revenue, because they take more of a public-first mentality, which drives more business and more opportunity... in part because so much of the value flows back to the public.

And therein lies the challenge of measurability. There is all sorts of economic activity that isn't properly measured today. When people look at Craigslist and say it's not maximizing revenue, that ignores the massive value that it has created, in part by leaving money in the pockets of others (who used to have to pay for similar services) while at the same time providing a tremendously useful service. But, because it's not a direct transaction, it doesn't get "counted" in the traditional sense. Tim O'Reilly really drove this point home in the discussion, talking about how we need to better measure that "hidden economy." That is, we need to measure the true value of something over time, rather than the limited value of just the direct cash transactions.

To some extent, this is a fault of economic linguistics. We measure economic value in monetary value -- even when it doesn't involve money directly. And, yet, because of this, we often forget that non-monetary transactions have tremendous costs, price and value as well. Thus they get ignored. Economics is supposed to be (in part) about that intersection of cost and benefit -- but a very, very large percentage of the economy is not about monetary costs and benefits, even if that's how it's often measured.

The end result, then, is that we're not properly recognizing the benefits (or, indeed, the costs), because we're ignoring the vast majority of those in assuming that anything that doesn't involve monetary exchange has no benefit or cost.

If one thing comes out of this discussion is that I think it's time we start looking for ways to change this. I'd like to start. We've already been doing some research that hopefully highlights costs and benefits in ways that weren't clearly stated previously, but that was very narrowly focused. I'm hoping that as we move forward, we might be able to start to construct new models and new research that really explores the true value of all the benefits and costs of such things. If that, alone, can help companies recognize that the path of incumbency is actually not the best one for long term maximization of benefit, then perhaps we can get more companies to act like Craigslist or Kickstarter -- where even they don't think that they're maximizing revenue, because they choose not to seize the largest possible percentage of the pie today, knowing that by allowing much greater consumer surplus, they're actually expanding their own opportunity for tomorrow.

There was a lot more discussed during the day (and into the evening over drinks and dinner), but this is the line of thinking that has me most interested, and it's an area that I hope to continue to explore -- with your help.

from the funny-stuff dept

I recently gave a talk at the Innovate/Activate conference, where I discussed where the copyright lobby had been super successful, and where it seemed some of their weaknesses were. One thing I pointed out was that they had completely lost the hearts and minds of the public -- and no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to muster up any kind of public or grassroots support. As an example, I showed a photo of the massive street protests against ACTA in Poland, and questioned what a pro-ACTA demonstration might look like. Well, bizarrely, it appears that some in the Copyright Lobby had decided to try to put on a pro-ACTA demonstration... but they needed to hire people to act as ACTA supporters. Of course, when you seem to think -- as the industry often appears to -- that the only motivating factor possible in the world is monetary exchange, perhaps this isn't that surprising.

Despite this impeccable pedigree, the Hurd is being used today by only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions running Linux -- further evidence that it's really not the idea, but the execution that counts.